In the opening post there are broken links to two diagrams of the solar system as observed from earth over time. Correct links are here. Planet Positions 1999-2008 is a chart I made of the cycles of the solar system over the current decade. Planets 2008 is a planetary calendar for 2008, a scientific almanac. These empirical diagrams illustrate the potential of a geocentric cosmology.

All I see here are graphical ephemerides of the planets. The burden is on you to convince us, by means of compelling statistical analysis, that there is even a slight chance that your ideas of relations between this information and events on Earth are worth the trouble of scientific scrutiny.

Okay, consider the 1999-2008 time chart of the planets. This is a starting point for a temporal cosmology, as it shows the immediate universe as a dynamic process. I am saying this is how the universe, lensed by our immediate context, appears to us on our planet. Remember, if you were big enough to stand on the solar system like on a small coin, the nearest bright star, Alpha Centauri, would be 100 metres away. So it is reasonable to consider the solar system as a lens for the cosmos. Now, this time series is too short to demonstrate a scientific correlation, but I would like to draw attention to one feature of it which illustrates a changing pattern. At the start of the millennium, the chart illustrates three conjunctions of outer planets - Saturn-Jupiter, Uranus-Neptune and Mars-Pluto. Each of these pairs is together at the start of 2001. They gradually separated in that year, with the final Mars-Pluto separation happening in August 2001. Historically, it is possible to examine the periods when similar events occurred, and look for correlations. This science is in its infancy, as the material is chaotic and each re-occurrence is different. My purpose here is to show that this material can be studied with rigorous empirical methods.

This has non sequitur written all over it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Can you show us some preliminary examples?

The 'sequitur' depends on the examples. It also flows from my claim that the solar system is an important and effective context for the evolution of life on earth.
A good preliminary example is from Dane Rudhyar in his book Astrological Timing, published in 1969. He quotes Sepharial as predicting that the Uranus-Neptune conjunction, which happened most recently in 1989-94 at the collapse of communism, corresponds with "disruption of old and effete institutions and laws, revision of codes and deposing of governments, new social methods through stress and insurrection." (p76) Now I know you will see this as cherry-picking, but it illustrates an accurate historic prediction relating to slow movements of the outer planets. In my first BAUT thread, Science and Astrology , I presented at post 34 a series of interpretations from Sakoian and Acker which correlated with planetary alignments in 2001.

A single example like this says nothing about possible correlation. Have you tried analyzing it over the past few millenia to see if there really is a pattern?

This has been done by Tarnas and Rudhyar and others to some extent. Sepharial's prediction was based on his observations of past Uranus-Neptune alignments, and was accurate regarding world events of 1991. A much more systematic approach is needed before this material can approach scientific status.